Benchmark: Math.x ** 2 vs. x * x

Script Preparation code:

var numbers = Array.from(Array(10000), (_,x) => (Math.random()*x));

Tests:

Math.pow
numbers.map(x => x ** 2);
x * x
numbers.map(x => x * x);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
Math.pow
x * x

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 9 months ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/138.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 138 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
Math.pow	18979.5 Ops/sec
x * x	19360.7 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 11 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

### Benchmark Overview

This benchmark is designed to compare the performance of two approaches for performing a square operation on numbers in JavaScript: using the exponentiation operator (`**`) and using traditional multiplication (`*`). Both methods aim to achieve the same result—squaring an array of randomly generated numbers.

### Options Compared

1. **Exponentiation Operator**: 
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `numbers.map(x => x ** 2);`
   - **Test Name**: "Math.pow"

2. **Multiplication**:
   - **Benchmark Definition**: `numbers.map(x => x * x);`
   - **Test Name**: "x * x"

### Pros and Cons of Each Approach

#### Exponentiation Operator (`x ** 2`)
- **Pros**:
  - **Readability**: Using the exponentiation operator is generally clearer and directly conveys the mathematical intention of squaring a number.
  - **Conciseness**: Less code to write compared to multiplication, particularly in more complex expressions.
  
- **Cons**:
  - **Performance**: In this benchmark, the exponentiation operator demonstrated slightly lower execution speed compared to traditional multiplication, which could indicate higher computational overhead.

#### Multiplication (`x * x`)
- **Pros**:
  - **Performance**: This approach has proven to be faster based on benchmark results, indicating that it may be more efficient for recurring operations in performance-sensitive contexts.
  - **Legacy Compatibility**: Multiplication is a well-established operation that has been used in JavaScript and many programming languages for decades, assuring broad compatibility.
  
- **Cons**:
  - **Verbosity**: May be less readable or intuitive in more complex mathematical expressions compared to using the exponentiation operator.

### Other Considerations
When choosing between these two methods for performance-critical applications, developers may need to consider the target environment. As indicated by the benchmark results, both approaches can efficiently handle tasks, but multiplication offered marginally better performance in this instance.

### Libraries and Features
This benchmark does not utilize any external libraries for the tests, as both operations are natively supported in JavaScript. The exponentiation operator (`**`) is a newer addition to the language (introduced in ES2016) that simplifies the task of raising numbers to powers. The use of higher-order functions like `map()` is a feature of JavaScript’s functional programming capabilities, enabling concise transformations of arrays.

### Alternatives
Some alternative methods for squaring a number could include:

1. **Math.pow(x, 2)**: A traditional approach using the `Math.pow` function, where it accepts two arguments: the base and the exponent.
   - **Performance Consideration**: Typically slower than direct multiplication or the exponentiation operator due to function call overhead.

2. **Using a Loop**: For very large datasets, manually iterating through numbers in a simple for-loop structure may offer optimizations in certain contexts, though at the cost of readability.

3. **Typed Arrays**: If squaring needs to be performed on very large datasets and performance is paramount, using typed arrays can leverage lower-level optimizations in JavaScript engines.

In summary, while both squaring methods provide valid approaches, the choice may depend on the specific context of use—prioritizing readability, maintainability, or performance based on the requirements of the application.

Related benchmarks:

Math.x ** 2 vs. x * x (version: 1)

Comparing performance of: Math.pow vs x * x

Created: 11 months ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

Math.pow

x * x

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model gpt-4o-mini, generated 11 months ago):